Ms Laxmi Enterprises through Its Proprietor Manoj Kumar Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Deptt of Industries Mines and Geology

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No.2695 of 2020

M/s Laxmi Enterprises, having its registered office at Nehru Road, Bengali Tola, P.O & P.S-Ramgarh Cant. District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand), through its proprietor, namely, Manoj Kumar Agarwal, aged about 46 years, son of Sri Raj Kumar Agarwal, resident of Nehru Road, Bengali Tola, P.O & PS-Ramgarh Cant., District Ramgarh (Jharkhand)

¶5

…… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O.& P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶8

Joint Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O & PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶9

District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh P.O and P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. ………… Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶12

------For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Resp-State of Jharkhand: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG

¶13

¶14

C.A.V on 13.08.2025 Pronounced on 12/09/2025

¶15

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of

¶17

the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

¶18

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, for quashing of the order issued vide letter no.341 dated 05.05.2020 (Annexure-10) under the signature of District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh-Respondent no.3 so far as it relates to the vehicle of the petitioner being Vehicle No. JH02AK-6930 and JH-02V-9431, whereby and whereunder the respondent no.3 informed the Police Officer-in-Charge,

¶19

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶20

Hazaribagh that a fine has been imposed upon Ten Vehicles (including the two vehicles of the petitioner) as per the provisions of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017;

¶21

And/Or

¶22

(ii) Upon quashing of an aforesaid order an appropriate writ, order or direction, may be issued declaring that the imposition of fine is illegal and consequently direct the respondents particularly the respondent no.3 to refund the amount of Rs.2,31,102/- along-with the statutory interest.”

¶23

Factual Matrix

¶24

The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:

¶25

(i) It is pleaded that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm inter alia engaged in business of resale of coal purchased by the government companies/private companies. For doing the aforesaid business, the petitioner was required to and accordingly got itself registered with auction service provider i.e. MSTC Limited and M. Junction Services Limited. The certificate to that effect was issued by MSTC Limited on 18.09.2019 which is valid up to 23.12.2020 being Buyer No.57278, similarly M. Junction Services Ltd. issued ID Card No.27712 which is valid upto 16.08.2020.

¶26

(ii) It is pleaded that M/s Central Coalfields Limited from timeto-time issues tender for Spot E-auction in terms of the applicable Auction Rules. As per the conditions of auction the bidders will have to be registered as 'dealer' under the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017' ["Rules, 2017"] and

¶27

2

¶28

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶29

submit a Dealer Registration Certificate in Form-B. The petitioner accordingly applied for and was granted a Certificate of Dealer Registration in Form-B on 15.05.2019 and was assigned a Mineral Dealer Registration Number viz J030802930.

¶30

(iii) It is pleaded that M/s CCL, through the service provider, namely, MSTC Ltd. and M Junction Ltd. conducted Spot E- Auction (offer with revised reserved price) on 22.04.2020 and 23.04.2020 for sale of Raw Coal / Reject by Road Mode in its different collieries.

¶31

(iv) It is pleaded that the writ petitioner participated in spot E- Auction held on 22.04.2020 in respect of different collieries of M/s CCL and after successful completion of the bidding process, the petitioner was declared as the successful bidder for seven collieries of M/s CCL in connection with auction held on 22.04.2020.

¶32

(v) It is pleaded that consequently, M/s CCL issued a Sale Intimation Letter to the petitioner confirming that the petitioner has been allotted coal /coal products of M/s CCL through E-Auction conducted by MSTC and the said letter set out details of the colliery, coal allotted, bid price and the grade / size of the coal.

¶33

(vi) Thereafter, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.1,27,77,400/- on 23.04.2020 with M/s CCL on account of the abovementioned transaction by way of RTGS.

¶34

3

¶35

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶36

(vii) It is pleaded that thereafter, M/s CCL, inter alia, issued a Sale Order (Road Mode) for 1000 tonnes of coal in favour of the petitioner on 25.04.2020 for Kedla OCP Colliery.

¶37

(viii) It is pleaded that the coal was purchased for trading and the petitioner was directed to approach the concerned area sales officer on or before 02.05.2020.

¶38

(ix) Thereafter, the petitioner approached the concerned area sales officer along with the sale order and consequently an allotment schedule for loading of trucks from Kedla OCP Cast Projects for 29.04.2020 was issued, the petitioner was required to bring a total number of 13 trucks between 01.05.2020 to 07.05.2020 as per the schedule for lifting the coal. For transportation of coal from the colliery of M/s CCL, the petitioner hired trucks and as per the given schedule, the petitioner sent 2 nos. of trucks in the Kedla OCP Colliery on 01.05.2020 bearing registration number JH-02V9431 and JH02AK-6930 for lifting and transportation of coal.

¶39

(x) It is pleaded that M/s CCL Issued two Tax Invoice (GST INV1) on 01.05.2020, wherein the details of the quantity of tonnes and vehicles are recorded. Vehicle No. JH-02V-9431 was loaded with 19.07 tonnes of coal and JH-02AK-6930 was load with 18.63 tonnes of coal.

¶40

(xi) It is pleaded that after the issuance of GST Challan, M/s CCL issued two Transport Challans in Form-D on 01.05.2020 in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules, 2017, wherein the details of the

¶41

4

¶42

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶43

Vehicle carrying coal, place of delivery of materials, Distance and Date of Dispatch of materials are provided.

¶44

(xii) It is pleaded that the coal was to be dispatched from Charhi, Hazaribagh Area-Kedla to Nehru Road, Bangali Tola, Ramgarh, the distance between the two points being 100 K.M. One challan was issued on 01.05.2020 at 05:57:10 P.M. which was valid upto 01.05.2020 at 09:57:10 P.M for the Vehicle No. JH-02V-9431, whereas for the other Vehicle No. JH-02AK-6930 a Challan was issued on 01.05.2020 at 06:40:51 P.M. which was valid upto 01.05.2020 at 10:40:51 P.M.

¶45

(xiii) It is pleaded that the petitioner is engaged in the business of resale of the coal / minerals. Coal is a de-controlled item and after purchase of coal through the spot e-auction process, the petitioner can resell the coal in the open market and for that the petitioner has to re-generate the GST Invoice in the name of the purchaser and for transportation of the goods, it has to generate E-Way Bill from the Government Website, i.e. www.ewaybillgst.gov.in.

¶46

(xiv) It is pleaded that the petitioner had sold the abovementioned coal to be lifted from Kedla OCP on 01.05.2020 to one M/s Laxmi Coal Dipo. Gaya, Bihar and for transportation of the same, the petitioner generated GST Invoice on 01.05.2020 in the name of M/s Laxmi Coal Dipo, at village Majholia, P.S. Aamas, Gaya, Bihar, and an E-Way Bill 01.05.2020.

¶47

5

¶48

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶49

(xv) It is pleaded that from the E-Way Bill it is evident that for the Vehicle No. JH-02AK-6930 the same was valid from 01.05.2020 at 08:33 P.M. till 03.05.2020, and the distance is 181 K.M.

¶50

(xvi) It is pleaded that for the Vehicle No. JH-02V-9431 the E-Way Bill was valid from 01.05.2020 at 08:52 P.M. till 03.05.2020, and the distance is 181 Κ.Μ.

¶51

(xvii) It is pleaded that after the coal was loaded on the two trucks from Kedla OCP on 01.05.2020 and the above mentioned two trucks were in transit and headed to Gaya, both the Vehicles of the petitioner were intercepted by the Police Officer, Ichak, Hazaribagh on 02.05.2020 and on a baseless allegation that the vehicles were engaged in illegal transportation of the minerals and both the vehicle / trucks were detained by the police. Neither any proceeding was initiated nor any seizure list was prepared.

¶52

(xviii)It is pleaded that the police did not have the authority to search and seize the vehicles. The papers produced by the drivers such as the GST Invoices, E-Way bill and the transport challan were not considered by the police officials and the writ petitioner was asked to contact the respondent no.3 District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh.

¶53

(xix) It is pleaded that thereafter, the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh issued letter no.341 dated 05.05.2020 informing the Police Officer-in-Charge, Hazaribagh that a fine has been imposed upon Ten Vehicles (including the two vehicles of the

¶54

6

¶55

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶56

petitioner) as per the provisions of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 for illegal transportation of the coal. The penalty imposed qua truck being registration number JH-02AK-6930 was Rs,1,14,202/- whereas for truck being registration number JH-02V-9431 was Rs, 1,16,900/-. The quantum of penalty was double the amount of the basic price of coal i.e. Rs.3065 per Metric Ton.

¶57

(xx) Further, the writ petitioner was thus compelled to deposit the penalty of Rs.1,14,202/-against Vehicle No. JH-02AK-6930 and penalty of Rs.1,16,900/- against Vehicle No. JH-02V9431, both on 11.05.2020; total penalty being Rs.2,31,102/-.

¶58

(xxi) It is pleaded that thereafter, the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh, vide its letter no.356 dated 13.05.2020, informed the Police Officer-in-Charge, Ichak, Hazaribagh that the petitioner has deposited the penalty amount against both the Vehicles, and only thereafter the vehicles were released.

¶59

Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed by

¶60

the petitioner-company for quashing of the impugned order dated 05.05.2020 issued by the respondent no.3-District Mining officer, Hazaribagh as also for refund of the amount of Rs.2,31,102/- along with the statutory interest.

¶61

Submission on behalf of the writ petitioner:

¶62

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned decision issued under the signature of District Mining Officer:

¶63

7

¶64

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶65

(i) The District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh has no jurisdiction and / or competence to impose the penalty by the impugned order. The Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2017 (herein referred as Rule of 2017) read with the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 do not empower the District Mining Officer to impose any penalty even if there is a violation of the 2017 Rules. The power to punish has been entrusted to the courts by the rules 2017, therefore, the fine which has been imposed by issuance of the impugned order vide order dated 05.05.2020 by the District Mining Officer is per se illegal.

¶66

(ii) It has been contended that if the content of Rule 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, (herein referred as Rule 2017) will be considered then the same being in the nature of punishment which can only be inflicted by the learned competent Court having criminal jurisdiction.

¶67

(iii) It has further been contended that the power to seize and confiscate by the Police Officer is contrary to Rule 11 of the Rules, 2017 and Memo no.2532 dated 17.8.2017, wherein the State Government has not given the power to the police officer to search the vehicle and confiscate the goods.

¶68

(iv) It has been submitted that the petitioner states that prior to the issuance of the impugned order neither any show cause notice was served on the petitioner nor the petitioner was granted any opportunity of hearing by the District Mining Officer. The

¶69

8

¶70

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶71

Impugned order therefore is violative of the principles of natural justice and hence is a nullity.

¶72

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the impugned order, therefore, suffers from an error.

¶73

Submission on behalf of the Respondent-State:

¶74

Per contra, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State to defend the impugned order has raised the following grounds:

¶75

(i) It has been contended that the filing of present application is wholly without cause of action and without any reasonable & cogent reasons for the reason that the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the challan produced by the petitioner has already been expired and the destination mentioned over the challan is different from the route/place where seizure has been made and is contrary to the provision of Section 13 to Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2017 and further there is efficacious and alternative remedy but still the petitioner straight way moved before this Hon'ble court in writ jurisdiction where also there is also dispute of facts.

¶76

(ii) The impugned order dated 05.05.2020 has been issued by the District Mining Officer under Rule 13 of the Rule 2017.

¶77

(iii) It has been submitted that the important thing is to be taken into consideration is actual conferment of power as has been confirmed by virtue of provision of Rule 54 (5) of JMMC Rules, 2004 which has been invoked in view of the of the provision of

¶78

9

¶79

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶80

Rule 13 of Rule of 2017 where it has been provided that any person who in contravenes of any of the provision of these rules, or buys or sells or stores minerals except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the dealers registration or who transports the mineral except as mentioned in the transport challan or transport minerals without transport challan shall be punishable as per provision made under JMMC Rules, 2004 and as amended from time to time.

¶81

(iv) The contention, therefore, has been made that District Mining Officer has conferred with the power as would be evident from the Rule 54(5) of JMMC Rules, 2004.

¶82

(v) It has further been contended that it appears from the record that a surprise inspection/checking has been carried on 02.05.2020 by the officer In-Charge and other police officer of Ichak Police Station and during inspection after observing the documents of petitioner vehicles and other 8 vehicles, it was suspected that stolen coal are being transported without valid papers and therefore the vehicles have been seized after instituting sanha being no. 05/20 in Ichak P.S.

¶83

(vi) It is submitted that after seizure of vehicles, the document produced by the vehicles have been sent to the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh for verification which was accordingly verified wherein it was found that the challans have expired and the said vehicles have been found to be plying in different route as mentioned in transit challan and same has been found to be contrary to Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining,

¶84

10

¶85

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶86

Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 and, accordingly, a report vide memo no. 337 dated 04.05.2020 has been forwarded to the officer In-charge of Ichak.

¶87

(vii) It has further been submitted that since the said fine has been as per the statutory mandate as provided under Rule 2017 read with Rule 54 of Rules 2004 by which the jurisdiction has been conferred to the District Mining Officer, therefore, the said impugned order dated 05.05.2020 requires no interference.

¶88

(viii) It has further been submitted that police has jurisdiction to make search and seizure of the property if suspected circumstances leading to the facts that illegal transportation of coal are being made and loss to the Government are being done, however, in the instant case the challans have been sent to Mining Department and after verification demand has been issued in terms of rules by District Mining Officer which is within jurisdiction.

¶89

(ix) It has been submitted that there is no complete bar in search and seizure of property if found to be involved in theft and giving loss to Government under IPC, however, in the present case the police has sent the paper for verification to the Mining Department and the action of imposing fine under Rules 2017 has been made by District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh which is within jurisdiction. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already made it clear that the police are having jurisdiction despite special rules once it founds the action to be an offence

¶90

11

¶91

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶92

under IPC and merely by a letter the jurisdiction of police may not be abrogated.

¶93

(x) It has further been contended that the imposing fine was legal in view of Rule 13 of the Rule 2017 and the same was imposed after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner but the petitioner has not produced the requisite documents as such no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.

¶94

The learned Advocate General, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned order, thus, needs no interference and the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed.

¶95

Analysis:

¶96

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition and the counteraffidavit as also the finding recorded in the impugned order passed by the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh.

¶97

It is evident from the factual aspect that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm inter alia engaged in the business of resale of coal purchased by the Government companies/private companies. For doing the aforesaid business, the petitioner was required to and accordingly got itself registered with auction service provider i.e. MSTC Limited and M. Junction Services Limited. The certificate to that effect was issued by MSTC Limited on 18.09.2019 which is valid up to 23.12.2020 being Buyer No.57278, similarly M. Junction Services Ltd. issued ID Card No.27712 which is valid upto 16.08.2020.

¶98

M/s Central Coalfields Limited from time-to-time issues tender for Spot E-auction in terms of the applicable Auction Rules. As

¶99

12

¶100

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶101

per the conditions of auction the bidders will have to be registered as 'dealer' under the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017' ["Rules, 2017"] and submit a Dealer Registration Certificate in Form-B. The petitioner, accordingly, applied for and was granted a Certificate of Dealer Registration in Form-B on 15.05.2019 and was assigned a Mineral Dealer Registration Number viz J030802930.

¶102

The service provider, namely, M/s MSTC Ltd. and M Junction Ltd. conducted Spot E-Auction (offer with revised reserved price) on 22.04.2020 and 23.04.2020 for sale of Raw Coal / Reject by Road Mode in its different collieries.

¶103

The writ petitioner participated in spot E-Auction and after successful completion of the bidding process, the petitioner was declared as the successful bidder for seven collieries of M/s CCL.

¶104

Thereafter, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.1,27,77,400/- on 23.04.2020 with M/s CCL on account of the abovementioned transaction by way of RTGS consequently M/s CCL, inter alia , issued a Sale Order (Road Mode) for 1000 tonnes of coal in favour of the petitioner on 25.04.2020 for Kedla OCP Colliery. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the concerned area sales officer along with the sale order and consequently an allotment schedule for loading of trucks from Kedla OCP Cast Projects was issued on 29.04.2020, the petitioner was required to bring a total number of 13 trucks between 01.05.2020 to 07.05.2020 as per the schedule for lifting the coal.

¶105

13

¶106

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶107

For transportation of coal from the colliery of M/s CCL, the petitioner hired trucks and as per the given schedule, the petitioner sent 2 nos. of trucks in the Kedla OCP Colliery on 01.05.2020 bearing registration number JH-02V9431 and JH-02AK-6930 for lifting and transportation of coal.

¶108

M/s CCL Issued two Tax Invoice (GST INV-1) on 01.05.2020, wherein the details of the quantity of tonnes and vehicles are recorded. Vehicle No. JH-02V-9431 was loaded with 19.07 tonnes of coal and JH-02AK-6930 was loaded with 18.63 tonnes of coal. After the issuance of GST Challan, M/s CCL issued two Transport Challans in Form-D on 01.05.2020 in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules, 2017, wherein the details of the Vehicle carrying coal, place of delivery of materials, Distance and Date of Dispatch of materials are provided.

¶109

Thereafter, the petitioner had sold the said coal to be lifted from Kedla OCP colliery on 01.05.2020 to one M/s Laxmi Coal Dipo, Gaya, Bihar and for transportation of the same, the petitioner generated GST Invoice on 01.05.2020 in the name of M/s Laxmi Coal Dipo, at village Majholia, P.S. Aamas, Gaya, Bihar, and an E-Way Bill 01.05.2020.

¶110

It is the case of the petitioner that the coal was loaded on the aforesaid two trucks from Kedla OCP on 01.05.2020 and the above mentioned two trucks were in transit and headed to Gaya, both the Vehicles of the petitioner were intercepted by the Police Officer, Ichak, Hazaribagh on 02.05.2020 and on a baseless allegation that the vehicles were engaged in illegal transportation of the minerals and both the

¶111

14

¶112

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶113

vehicle / trucks were detained by the police. Neither any proceeding was initiated nor any seizure list was prepared.

¶114

It is further case of the petitioner that the papers produced by the drivers such as the GST Invoices, E-Way bill and the transport challan were not considered by the police officials and the writ petitioner was asked to contact the respondent no.3-District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh.

¶115

Thereafter, the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh issued letter no.341 dated 05.05.2020 informing the Police Officer-in-Charge, Hazaribagh that a fine has been imposed upon Ten Vehicles (including the two vehicles of the petitioner) as per the provisions of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 for illegal transportation of the coal. The penalty imposed qua truck being registration number JH-02AK-6930 was Rs,1,14,202/whereas for truck being registration number JH-02V-9431 was Rs, 1,16,900/-. The quantum of penalty was double the amount of the basic price of coal i.e. Rs.3065 per Metric Ton. Accordingly, petitioner has deposited the said total penalty being Rs.2,31,102/-against both the Vehicles, and only thereafter the vehicles were released.

¶116

Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-company for quashing of the impugned order dated 05.05.2020 issued by the respondent no.3-District Mining officer, Hazaribagh as also for refund of the amount of Rs.2,31,102/- along with the statutory interest.

¶117

This Court on the basis of the aforesaid factual aspect and after appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of both the parties

¶118

15

¶119

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶120

is required to consider the issue that “ whether the action of the State in inflicting punishment of imposing penalty in terms of money from the provision of Rule 54 (5) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 as provided under Rule 13 of the Rule of 2017 can be said to be just and proper in absence of any provision to inflict punishment under the Rule 2017 in a case of illegal transportation of the mines products (coal)?

¶121

But, before consideration of the aforesaid issues the legal provision as required to be considered under MMDR Act, 1957, the JMMC Rules, 2004 and Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining), Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.

¶122

The Act 1957 has been enacted to provide for the development and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of the Union.

¶123

The object of MMDR Act 1957 has been taken note by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 499 wherein it has been observed as under:

¶124

“ 84. Briefly therefore, the overall purpose and objective of the MMDR Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder is to ensure that mining operations are carried out in a scientific manner with a high degree of responsibility including responsibility in protecting and preserving the environment and the flora of the area. Through this process, the holder of a mining lease is obliged to adhere to the standards laid down under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or the EPA as well as the laws pertaining to air and water pollution and also by necessary implication, the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short “the FC Act”). Exploitation of the natural resources is ruled out. If the holder of a mining lease does not adhere to the provisions of the statutes or the rules or the terms and conditions of the mining lease, that person is liable to

¶125

16

¶126

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶127

incur penalties under Section 21 of the MMDR Act. In addition thereto, Section 4-A of the MMDR Act which provides for the termination of a mining lease is applicable. This provides that where the Central Government, after consultation with the State Government is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of regulation of mines and mineral development, preservation of natural environment, prevention of pollution, etc. then the Central Government may request the State Government to prematurely terminate a mining lease.

¶128

The reference of the definition as contained under section 3, particularly, section 3 (hc) of MMDR Act, 1957 needs to be made herein which defines a “Special Court” which means a Court of Sessions designated as Special Court under sub-section (1) of section 30B.

¶129

Section 30B provides for constitution of Special Court in which the State Government has been conferred with the power, for the purpose of providing speedy trial of offences for contravention of the sub-section 1 or sub-section 1A of Section 4, constitutes, by notification as many Special Court as may be necessary for such area/areas as may be specified in the notification.

¶130

Section 15 also needs to be referred herein which confers power upon the State Government to make rules in respect of minor minerals, for ready reference the same is being quoted hereunder as:

¶131

15. Power of State Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals.―(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for, regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith.

¶132

[(1A) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:―

¶133

17

¶134

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶135

(a) the person by whom and the manner in which, applications for quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions may be made and the fees to be paid therefor;

¶136

(b) the time within which, and the form in which, acknowledgement of the receipt of any such applications may be sent;

¶137

(c) the matters which may be considered where applications in respect of the same land are received within the same day;

¶138

(d) the terms on which, and the conditions subject to which and the authority by which quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions may be granted or renewed;

¶139

(e) the procedure for obtaining quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions;

¶140

(f) the facilities to be afforded by holders of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions to persons deputed by the Government for the purpose of undertaking research or training in matters relating to mining operations;

¶141

(g) the fixing and collection of rent, royalty, fees, dead rent, fines or other charges and the time within which and the manner in which these shall be payable;

¶142

(h) the manner in which rights of third parties may be protected (whether by way of payment of compensation or otherwise) in cases where any such party is prejudicially affected by reason of any prospecting or mining operations;

¶143

(i) the manner in which rehabilitation of flora and other vegetation such as trees, shrubs and the like destroyed by reason of any quarrying or mining operations shall be made in the same area or in any other area selected by the State Government (whether by way of reimbursement of the cost of rehabilitation or otherwise) by the person holding the quarrying or mining lease;

¶144

(j) the manner in which and the conditions subject to which, a quarry lease, mining lease or other mineral concession may be transferred;

¶145

(k) the construction, maintenance and use of roads power transmission lines, tramways, railways, serial rope ways, pipelines and the making of passage for water for mining purposes on any land comprised in a quarry or mining lease or other mineral concession;

¶146

(l) the form of registers to be maintained under this Act;

¶147

(m) the reports and statements to be submitted by holders of quarry or mining leases or other mineral concessions and the authority to which such reports and statements shall be submitted;

¶148

(n) the period within which and the manner in which and the authority to which applications for revision of any order passed by any authority under these rules may be made, the fees to be paid therefore, and the powers of the revisional authority; and

¶149

(o) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.]

¶150

(2) Until rules are made under sub-section (1), any rules made by a state Government regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals which are in force immediately before the commencement of these Act shall continue in force.

¶151

[(3) The holder of a mining lease or any other mineral concession granted under any rule made under sub-section (1) shall pay royalty or dead rent, whichever is more in respect of minor minerals removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-

¶152

18

¶153

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶154

lessee at the rate prescribed for the time being in the rules framed by the State Government in respect of minor minerals:

¶155

Provided that the State Government shall not enhance the rate of royalty or dead rent in respect of any minor mineral for more than once during any period of three years.]

¶156

5 [(4) Without prejudice to sub-sections (1), (2) and sub-section (3), the State Government may, by notification, make rules for regulating the provisions of this Act for the following, namely:―

¶157

(a) the manner in which the District Mineral Foundation shall work for the interest and benefit of persons and areas affected by mining under subsection (2) of section 9B;

¶158

(b) the composition and functions of the District Mineral Foundation under sub-section (3) of section 9B; and

¶159

(c) the amount of payment to be made to the District Mineral Foundation by concession holders of minor minerals under section 15A.”

¶160

1. Section 21 of the Act of 1957 also needs to refer herein which

¶161

contains the provision for inflicting penalty in case of contravention of the provision of sub-section 1 or sub-section 1A of section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years and with fine which may extend to Rs. 5 lakhs per hectare of the area, for ready reference section 21 is being quoted hereunder as:

¶162

“21. Penalties.― [(1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area. (2) Any rule made under any provision of this Act may provide that any contravention thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention, with additional fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention.]

¶163

(3) Where any person trespasses into any land in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4, such trespasser may be served with an order of eviction by the State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by that Government and the State Government or such authorised authority may, if necessary, obtain the help of the police to evict the trespasser from the land.

¶164

[(4) Whenever any person raises, transports or causes to be raised or transported, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, and, for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or any

¶165

19

¶166

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶167

other thing, such mineral tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority specially empowered in this behalf.

¶168

(4A) Any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing seized under sub-section (4), shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take cognizance of the offence under subsection (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such court.]

¶169

(5) Whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority.”

¶170

1 [(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable.]

¶171

2 [Explanation.—On and from the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2021, the expression “raising,transporting or causing to raise or transport any mineral without any lawful authority” occurring in this section, shall mean raising, transporting or causing to raise or transportany mineral by a person without prospecting licence, mining lease or composite licence 3 [exploration licence] or in contravention of the rules made under section 23C.]

¶172

It is evident from the provision of section 21 of the Act 1957 which is having six sub-rules and starts with the rules to deal with issue of contravenes of provision of sub-section (1A) of section 4 and in such circumstances the concern will be punishable of imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years and with fine which may extend to Rs. 5 lakhs per hectare of the area.

¶173

We are skipping the provision of sub-section (2) and subsection (3) since, the issue in the present case is of illegal transportation which has been dealt with under sub-section 4 of section 21 wherein it

¶174

20

¶175

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶176

has been provided that whenever any person raises, transports or causes to be raised or transported without any lawful authority any mineral, from any land, and, for that purpose uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing, such mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing, shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority specially empowered on this behalf.

¶177

Sub-section (4A) of Section 21 thereof provides that any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle, or any other thing seized under subsection (4), shall be liable to be confiscated by order of a Court competent to take cognizance of the offence under sub-section (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the direction of such Court.

¶178

Sub-section (6) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable.

¶179

It is, thus, evident that section 21 of the Act 1957 is a Code in itself enacted to deal with the issue of contravention of provision of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 of the Act of 1957 and for the aforesaid purpose the power has been conferred to the Court as would be evident from sub-section (4A).

¶180

The reference of the word “Court” as under sub-section (4A) has been considered to be a Special Court

¶181

Section 23C of the Act of 1957 provides the conferment of power to the State Government to make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of mineral, which is being referred hereunder as:

¶182

[23C. Power of State Government to make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals .―(1) The

¶183

21

¶184

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶185

State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and for the purposes connected therewith. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:―

¶186

(a) establishment of check-posts for checking of minerals under transit; (b) establishment of weigh-bridges to measure the quantity of mineral being transported;

¶187

(c) regulation of mineral being transported from the area granted under a prospecting licence or a mining lease or a quarrying licence or a permit, in whatever name the permission to excavate minerals, has been given;

¶188

(d) inspection, checking and search of minerals at the place of excavation or storage or during transit;

¶189

(e) maintenance of registers and forms for the purposes of these rules; (f) the period within which and the authority to which applications for revision of any order passed by any authority be preferred under any rule made under this section and the fees to be paid therefore and powers of such authority for disposing of such applications; and

¶190

(g) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed for the purpose of prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals.

¶191

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 30, the Central Government shall have no power to revise any order passed by a State Government or any of its authorised officers or any authority under the rules made under sub-sections (1) and (2).]

¶192

Section 23C of the Act of 1957 contains a provision under sub-section (2)(g) wherein it has been stipulated that any other matter which is required to be or may be, prescribed for the purpose of prevention of illegal mining, transportation , storage of minerals the rule is to be framed.

¶193

The State Government, in exercise of power conferred under section 15 of the Act of 1957, has enacted the rule being “Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004”. The said rule contains a

¶194

22

¶195

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶196

provision under Rule 54, to which we are concerned herein, providing therein to inflict penalty for illegal transportation and unauthorized mining of the minor minerals.

¶197

One of the arguments, since, has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that rule 54 (5) deals with only minor minerals but as per the definition of the minerals as under section 3 (ad) of the Act of 1957 which includes all minerals except mineral oils.

¶198

Rule 54 of JMMC Rules, 2004 contains six sub-provisions which starts from sub-provision 1 wherein it has been provided that any person, if found to be involved in carrying out the mining operation of minor minerals or transportation against the rule, then there will be punishment of one year or maximum Rs.50,000/- amount will be inflicted by way of penalty.

¶199

Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 54 of Rule 2004 is relevant herein since, the same deals with the issue of transportation wherein it has been provided that if any driver of any vehicle has been found to be carrying out illegally the minor minerals and if failed to produce the relevant challan before the competent officer or the Director, Mines or Additional Director, Mines or Deputy Director, Mines or the District/Assistant Mining Officer or the Collector or any authorized officer delegated to the power by the State Government or he refused to allow the inspection, then maximum one year punishment or the doubled of the amount of the value of mines product or both can be imposed.

¶200

23

¶201

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶202

It is evident from the provision of Rule 2017 which contains

¶203

a provision under Rule 11 of search, seizure and confiscation which is being quoted hereinbelow as:

¶204

Search, Seizure and Confiscation:-( i). The following officers are authorized to stop, check, search and verify at any place/truck/Other Vehicle carrying the minerals/ore from the mine or other source or storage and seize the same as required within the jurisdiction as specified below:

¶205

(i)	Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary/Secretary/ Commissioner, Mines	In the entire State.
(ii)	Director of mines	In the entire State.
(iii)	Additional Director of mine	-do-
(iv)	Deputy Director of mine	Within their respective jurisdiction
(v)	District Collector/Deputy Commissioner	Within their respective jurisdiction
(vi)	District/Assistant Mining Officer	Within their respective jurisdiction
(vii)	Sub Divisional Magistrate/Any Other officer authorized by the collector	Within their respective jurisdiction / jurisdiction authorized by the collector in the District
(viii)	Mining Inspector	-do-
(ix)	In-charge check-gate	-do-

¶206

(i) It shall be the responsibility of the mining lessee/dealers to ensure that their carriers afford all assistance and co-operation for such inspection. (ii) The dealer/lessee shall allow any competent authority/competent officer or any such officer authorized by competent authority to inspect the place where mining, storage and processing unit exists to verify the stocks of ore and minerals and take sample or the abstract from the records maintained by him.

¶207

(iii) Every dealer shall allow competent authority/competent officer or any officer authorised by the Director, Mines/Commissioner, Mines or Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, Jharkhand to enter and inspect the premises, where the mineral is kept or stored. Inspection of such documents as desired in writing and furnishing of information as directed in writing shall be obligatory for such dealer. (iv)Every officer making a seizure, under these rules shall prepare a list of minerals, tools, equipment, vehicles or any other article, so seized and deliver a copy thereof signed by him to the person found in possession of such minerals. Such officer shall keep such seized property under proper custody with proper official seal and with detailed information.

¶208

(v)Any minerals, tool, equipment, vehicle or any thing seized shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court of the Deputy Commissioner of

¶209

24

¶210

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶211

the concerned district and shall be disposed of in accordance with direction of such court.

¶212

Rule 13 of the Rules of 2017 provides the provision to impose

¶213

penalty which is being referred hereunder as:

¶214

“Penalties: (i) Any person, who contravenes any of the provision of these rules, or buys or sells or store minerals except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of dealers registration or who transports the minerals except as mentioned in the transport challan or transport minerals without transport challan shall be punishable as per provision made under JMMC Rule, 2004 and as amended from time to time.

¶215

(ii) Whoever intentionally obstructs the competent officer or any other officer in performing his duties under these rules, shall be punishable with an imprisonment upto a term of one year or fine which may extend to Rs 25000/- or with both.”

¶216

It is evident from the provision as contained under Rule 13 of Rules, 2017 that any person, who contravenes any of the provision of these rules or buys or sells or stores the minerals except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the dealers registrations or who transports the minerals except as mentioned in the transport challan shall be punishable as per the provision under JMMC Rules, 2004 and as amended from time to time. The power of appeal and revision has been provided under Rules 14 and 15 thereof.

¶217

It is, thus, evident after going through the provision of Rule 13 of the Rule of 2017 that the power has been conferred upon the competent authority to inflict punishment in case of illegal transportation of mines products as per the provision as provided under JMMC Rules, 2004.

¶218

This Court, after going through all the provisions and on harmonious appreciation of all the statutory provision, i.e, the Act of 1957 or the Rule of 2004 amended in the year 2017 or the Rules of

¶219

25

¶220

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶221

2017, it is the conclusion which has been arrived at by this Court that the conferment of power in order to deal with the illegal mining operation or the illegal transportation of the mines product the State has been conferred with the power to institute a criminal case by initiating the proceeding by seizure and the report is to be submitted before the Court and thereafter the Court will to take cognizance as would be evident from the perusal of section 21 of Act of 1957 in its entirety right from sub-section (1) to sub-section (6) thereof.

¶222

The State has also been conferred with the power in terms of the provision of section 15 of the Act of 1957 to enact the State Rules and by virtue of the aforesaid provision the Rule 2004 has been framed and consequently amended in the year 2017 and in subsequent years also.

¶223

Section 23C (1) and 23 C (2) of the Act 1957 has further conferred upon the State to deal with the issue of illegal transportation of the mining products and by virtue of the said provision of the Act 1957, the Rules of 2017 has been formulated by the state of Jharkhand.

¶224

This Court has found by going through the provision of section 21 of the Act of 1957 by which the power has been conferred for initiation of the criminal proceeding while on the other hand the power has also been conferred upon the State to make out the rule to deal with the issue of illegal transportation along with other issues as referred in section 23C (1) of the Act of 1957.

¶225

At this juncture it would be apt to refer herein that the statute or rules made thereunder should be read as a whole and one provision should be construed with reference to the other provision to make the

¶226

26

¶227

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶228

provision consistent with the object sought to be achieved. Further, it is the well-known principle of harmonious construction that effect should be given to all the provisions and a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a “dead letter” is not harmonious construction, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohd. Shafi , (2001) 8 SCC 540 . The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:

¶229

“ 8. It is settled that for interpreting a particular provision of an Act, the import and effect of the meaning of the words and phrases used in the statute have to be gathered from the text, the nature of the subject-matter and the purpose and intention of the statute. It is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute that effort should be made in construing its provisions by avoiding a conflict and adopting a harmonious construction. The statute or rules made thereunder should be read as a whole and one provision should be construed with reference to the other provision to make the provision consistent with the object sought to be achieved. The well-known principle of harmonious construction is that effect should be given to all the provisions and a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a “dead letter” is not harmonious construction. With respect to law relating to interpretation of statutes this Court in Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama [(1990) 1 SCC 277] held: (SCC p. 284, para 16)

¶230

“16. The paramount object in statutory interpretation is to discover what the legislature intended. This intention is primarily to be ascertained from the text of enactment in question. That does not mean the text is to be construed merely as a piece of prose, without reference to its nature or purpose. A statute is neither a literary text nor a divine revelation. ‘Words are certainly not crystals, transparent and unchanged’ as Mr Justice Holmes has wisely and properly warned. (Towne v. Eisner [245 US 418, 425 (1918)] ) Learned Hand, J., was equally emphatic when he said: ‘Statutes should be construed, not as theorems of Euclid, but with some imagination of the purposes which lie behind them.’ (Lenigh Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavage [218 FR 547, 553] )”

¶231

This Court after going through the provision of the Act of

¶232

1957, therefore, is of the view, particularly, section 23C (1) and if under

¶233

27

¶234

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶235

the aforesaid provision any rule has been formulated by the State to deal with the issue of illegal transportation of mining products, then it would not be just and proper only to read out the provision of section 21 of the Act of 1957, rather the Rule has been formulated by the State on the strength of the power conferred under section 23C (1) of the Act of 1957, then there must be a harmonious construction of both the provisions and once the Rule has been formulated, then it will upon the wisdom of the State Government either to take recourse in case of contravention of any of the provision of the Act by taking recourse as provided under section 21 of the Act of 1957, or as per the Rule which has been formulated herein as Rules of 2017 containing therein a provision of Rule 13 which deals with inflicting of penalty as per the provision as contained under JMMC Rules, 2004.

¶236

If the State in that circumstance has proceeded to issue demand in case of illegal transportation of mines product by taking recourse of the Rule 13 of Rules of 2017, the same cannot be said to be in violation of the jurisdiction.

¶237

The jurisdiction, therefore, is very much available as per the provision of Rule 13 of Rules of 2017 if read together with the provision of 54 (5) of the JMMC Rule, 2004 as amended in 2017, particularly, as referred in the provision of Rule 54 as has been referred hereinabove.

¶238

It requires to refer herein that District Mining Officer having the jurisdiction to take decision to impose penalty as per the provision contained under Rule 13 of the Rule 2017 wherein such punishment is to be taken in terms of the JMMC Rule, 2004 under which as per the

¶239

28

¶240

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶241

provision as contained under Rule 54 (5) the District Mining Officer has been conferred with such power. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the District Mining Officer is having the jurisdiction in view of the discussions made hereinabove.

¶242

Further it needs to refer herein that the definition of minerals has been provided under section 3 (ad) of the Act of 1957 wherein the minerals has been defined to include all the mineral except mineral oils. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 54 of Rules of 2004 which refers about the minor mineral since the action has been taken in view of the power conferred under Rule 13 of Rule 2017 wherein the mineral has been defined under Rule 2 (l) which means mineral of all types except the atomic minerals in Part-B of the Schedule-1 of the Act of 1957.

¶243

This Court, therefore, is of the view that since the power as conferred under Rule 2017 has been taken recourse by the State as provided under Rule 13, however, the punishment as per provision made under JMMC Rules, 2004 has been referred therein and, as such, there cannot be any confusion that only with respect to the omission of punishment as provided/available the authority which has been conferred with the power is to be taken into consideration leaving aside the issue of mineral.

¶244

Further it requires to refer herein that even in case of the illegal transportation of such minerals are being carried out, then who will be the authority to check upon such illegal transportation, since, no power has been vested upon any Central authority or even no department in the nature of the mining department to run under the control of the Central Government is available in any State and, as such,

¶245

29

¶246

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶247

the State if has come out with a provision by defining the word minerals said to be in consonance with the definition as under the Act of 1957 as provided under section 3 (ad), then merely because the reference of minor mineral is there it is not available for the writ petitioner to take the ground that the concerned authority as referred in Rule 54(5) of JMMC Rules, 2004 is only to deal with the minor minerals leaving aside the major minerals.

¶248

Now this Court is adverting to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner wherein the issue of competency to impose the penalty by the impugned order has been raised.

¶249

It has been contended that the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2017 (herein referred as Rule of 2017) read with the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 do not empower the District Mining Officer to impose any penalty even if there is a violation of the 2017 Rules. The power to punish has been entrusted to the Courts by the Rules 2017, therefore, the fine which has been imposed by issuance of the impugned order vide order dated 05.05.2020 by the District Mining Officer is per se illegal.

¶250

While, on the other hand, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State has contended that the said decision taken by the State cannot be unjust and improper, rather it will be in accordance with law in view of the stipulation made under the provision of Rule 13 of Rule of 2017 wherein the illegal storage and transportation of mines product has been provided to be punishable as per the provision incorporated under the JMMC Rule, 2004.

¶251

30

¶252

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶253

It has been submitted that under the provision of Rule 2017, there is no independent provision to punish and that is the reason it has been stipulated in Rule 13 of Rule 2017 that such offence will be punishable and punishment will be in terms of the Rule 54 of the JMMC Rule, 2004.

¶254

It has further been contended that the Statute since provides to inflict punishment in terms of money or by instituting a criminal case which can be instituted under the provision of Rule 54 but it depends upon the wisdom of the State that instead of instituting a case under the provision of JMMC Rule, 2004, or the punishment in terms of money by not instituting a criminal case as per the provision of Rule 13 of Rule 2017, as such , the penalty imposed by the District Mining Officer cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional error.

¶255

The submission has been made by way of reason that since the State is the custodian of the major and minor minerals and, as such, it is upon the State to put deterrent in the illegal transportation or illegal storage of the mines product, coal herein, and in that view of the matter wisdom of the State, if the decision has been taken to punish the offender in terms of money, then the same cannot be said that the State has acted without any jurisdiction, rather the State will not act on the basis of the same and institute criminal case, then it is the State who will be at loss in case of illegal transportation of mining product and illegal storage thereof.

¶256

Another reason has been shown that if the statutory provision is there, then on the basis of the purposive construction of the statutory provision the conclusion is to be arrived at by taking into consideration

¶257

31

¶258

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶259

the statutory provision as contained in the Act/Rule so as to achieve the object and intent.

¶260

Further it requires to refer herein that the wrong doer cannot be permitted to instruct the State to choose the particular proceeding to deal with the cases of illegal transportation or illegal storage.

¶261

As we have already referred hereinabove that section 21(1) of the Act of 1957 is having the word, “punishable with imprisonment”. The same is the reference made under section 21(2), which suggests, that in case of violation of the provision of Section 4 (1A) of the MMDR ACT, 1957 the case is to be instituted under section 21(1) before the concerned Court for the purpose of inflicting punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years and with fine which may extend to Rs. 5 lakhs per hectare of the area or both.

¶262

The provision as contained under rule 54 (1) as provided under the JMMC Rules, 2004, provide punishment for imprisonment for a period of one year or fine of Rs. 50,000/- or both.

¶263

Rule 54 (5) of Rule 2004 is having with the reference of the competent officer wherein the power has been conferred to impose punishment to the extent of one year.

¶264

The provision of section 23C of the Act 1957 for the purpose of looking into the issue of illegal transportation and illegal storage, since, comes under the fold of the 23C(g), i.e, for any other purposes the legislation is to be formulated.

¶265

The object of the Rule 2017 and as per the caption head it is very apparent that the purpose for its enactment is to deal with the illegal transportation as also the illegal storage of the mine products.

¶266

32

¶267

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶268

The competent authority/competent officer has been conferred with the power as provided under Rule 11(i) to (v) of the Rule of 2017.

¶269

The provision as contained under Rule 11 of the Rule 2017 is being referred for the purpose of exercise of the power of the competent authority to deal with the issue of illegal transportation and illegal storage of the mine product.

¶270

Rule 13 of Rule of 2017 provides for penalty in case of intercepting any offence of irregularity of any illegal transportation or storage of the coal mines, then the same has been stipulated to be punishable and punishment is to be provided as per the provision as contained under the JMMC Rules 2004.

¶271

No doubt, therefore, under the Rule of 2017 there is no provision carved out by making reference of any penal provision and that is the reason the reference has been made that the offence of illegal transportation or illegal storage is punishable as per the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004.

¶272

No doubt, the JMMC Rule, 2004 does not contain any provision to punish the illegal doers who have been found to be involved in illegal transportation or illegal storage of the mine product, coal herein, save and except the provision as contained under rule 54 of the JMMC Rules, 2004.

¶273

Rule 54 starts from the sub-provision (1) wherein the punishment has been provided of one year imprisonment or a fine or Rs. 50,000/- thereafter the sub-provision (2), 3, 4 provide seizure of the vehicles/tools and arresting of the concerned person by the competent

¶274

33

¶275

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶276

officer whereas the quantum of punishment has been provided under Rule 54 (5).

¶277

Rule 54 of JMMC Rules, 2004 reads as under:

¶278

“[54, लघु खनिज ों के अिानिकृत उत्खिि तथा परिवहि के नलए दण्ड (1) क ई भी व्यक्ति , ज इि नियम ों के नवरूद्ध लघु खनिज ों का उत्खिि किते है अथवा उसकी ओि से यनद नकसी एजेण्ट , मैिेजि , कममचािी अथवा ठेकेदाि द्वािा ऐसा उत्खिि , अथवा परिवहि नकया जाता है त ऐसा प्रत्येक व्यक्ति अवैि खिि में भागीदाि समझा जाएगा तथा ऐसे व्यक्तिय ों क अनिकतम एक वर्म कैद अथवा अनिकतम 50,000/- पचास हजाि रूपये जुमामिा अथवा द ि ों सजाएँ दी जा सकेगी।

¶279

[(2) यनद क ई व्यक्ति इि नियम ों के प्राविाि ों का उल्लोंघि किते हुए खनिज का उत्खिि किता है त सक्षम पदानिकािी अथवा अथवा अिुमोंडल पदानिकािी अथवा अोंचल अनिकािी अथवा समाहर्त्ाम अथवा आयुि अथवा िाज्य सिकाि द्वािा प्रानिकृत क ई पदानिकािी ऐसे अपिाि कििे में प्रयुि सभी औजाि , सयोंत्र एवों वाहि के साथ लघु खनिज ों क जब्त कि सकते हैं। [(3) सक्षम पदानिकािी अथवा अथवा अिुमोंडल पदानिकािी अथवा अोंचल अनिकािी के द्वािा नििा नकसी दोंडानिकािी के आदेश अथवा नििा नकसी नगिफ्तािी वािण्ट के ऐसे व्यक्ति क नगिफ्ताि नकया जा सकेगा , ज इि नियम ों का उल्लोंघि किते हुए लघु खनिज ों का उत्खिि अथवा परिवहि किते हुए पाया जाता है।

¶280

[(4) सक्षम पदानिकािी अथवा अिुमोंडल पदानिकािी अथवा अोंचल अनिकािी उप नियम (2) के तहत नगिफ्ताि नकए गए व्यक्ति क , उस व्यक्ति द्वािा नकए गए अपिाि के सोंिोंि में एक नलक्तखत नशकायत पत्र के साथ सोंिोंनित थािे के अनिकािी क स ोंपेगा ज उस मामले में क्षेत्रानि काि वाले न्यानयक दण्डानिकािी के समक्ष 24 घोंटे के भीति प्रस् त ु कििा सुनिनित किेगा। ]

¶281

[(5) " यनद नकसी वाहि का क ई चालक लघु खनिज क परिवहि किते समय सक्षम पदानिकािी अथवा निदेशक , खाि अथवा अपि निदेशक , खाि अथवा उपनिदेशक खाि अथवा नजला / सहायक खिि पदानिकािी अथवा समाहताम अथवा समाहताम या िाज्य सिकाि द्वािा प्रानिकृत नकसी पदानिकािी क प्रपत्र ' एम ' अथवा झािखण्ड खनिज समिुदाि नियमावली , 2004 के अोंतगमत फामम ' डी ' में परिवहि चालाि नदखािे में असफल िहता है अथवा नििीक्षण से इन्काि किता है , त उसे अनिकतम 01 वर्म की कैद अथवा खनिज मूल्य की द गुिी िानश के ििािि दण्ड अथवा द ि ों एक साथ

¶282

34

¶283

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶284

दण्ड नदया जा सकता है तथा दूसिी एवों तीसिी िाि वैि परिवहि चालाि प्रस् त ु िहीों नकय जािे पि उपि ि के अनतरिि दण्ड की िानश क्रमशः 50,000.00 (पचास हजाि) रूपये एवों 1,00,000/-(एक लाख) रूपये ह गी।' जाोंच कििे वाले पदानिकािी द्वािा अवैि परिवहि किते पायें जािे पि वाहि क खनिज सनहत जप्त नकया जाएगा तथा नजसे नकसी सिकािी प्रनतष्ठाि में अथवा स्थािीय थािा प्राोंगण में सुिनक्षत िखा जाएगा। सक्षम पदानिकािी द्वािा अवैि परिवहिकताम के उपि ि दण्ड शुल्क एवों इस आशय का िोंि पत्र (Bond Paper) समनपमत नकए जािे पि नक न्यायालय द्वािा ि नटस नदए जािे पि उपक्तस्थत ह ोंगे, वाहि क खनिज सनहत छ डा जा सकता है, पिन्तु अवैि परिवहिकताम पि नियमािुकूल कािमवाई हेतु इसकी सूचिा न्यायानयक दण्डानिकािी क दी जाएगी। िोंि पत्र का प्रपत्र निदेशक, खाि द्वािा अलग से परिचानलत नकया जाएगा।

¶285

'[(6) क ई भी व्यक्ति नजसके पास , वैि खिि पट्टा / अिुमनत - पत्र िहीों है , यनद वह लघु खनिज ों का निष्कासि किता है अथवा इि नियम ों के नवरूद्ध उसकी ओि से क ई एजेण्ट , मैिेजि या नकसी ठेकेदाि के द्वािा ऐसा निष्कासि नकया जाता है त वह लघु खनिज ों के अवैि निष्कासि का आि पी ह गा तथा उससे [ खनिज ों के मूल्य की दुगुिी िानश ] के ििािि तक का दण्ड वसूलिीय ह गा साथ ही सिकाि ऐसे व्यक्ति से जैसा नक मामला ििता ह , भूनम पि नििा वैि प्रानिकािी की अिुमनत से नकए गये कब्जे की अवनि का लगाि , स्वानमस्व या कि की वसूली नकसी अन्य कािूि या नियम ज उस वि लागू ह , में उसके नवरूद्ध की जािे वाली कािमवाई के पूवामग्रह के नििा की जा सकेगी।“

¶286

The seminal question which is the issue herein is as to whether the competent authority as per the competency as provided under Rule 11 of Rule 2017, can exercise its jurisdiction by raising demand in consequence of penalty by taking recourse of the provision of 54 (5) of the JMMC Rules while imposing penalty as provided under Rule 13 of the Rule 2017.

¶287

We have already referred hereinabove that the MMDR Act, 1957 has been enacted for the purpose of development of the mining resources and its regulation and conservation and prudent exploitation of minerals. The scope of MMDR Act, 1957 or the frames whereunder

¶288

35

¶289

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶290

either by the Central Government or the State Government is for the purpose of regulating the issue of illegal mining. But what will happen in a case where the illegal transportation or illegal storage of the minerals is going on.

¶291

In the Central Government Legislation and in order to deal with the aforesaid eventually the prosecution can be lodged in view of the provision of section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 to deal with the issue of illegal transportation or storage or caused to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provision of this Act and the rules made thereunder as referred in section 4(1A).

¶292

Section 21(1) of the Act 1957 is the recourse to be taken in case of the violation if found on subsection (1) or subsection (1A) of section 4 by inflicting punishment with imprisonment for a term which extends to five years.

¶293

The provision as contained under section 21 of the Act of 1957 is to deal with the issue of transportation or storage considered under the Statute to be restricted and in contravention thereof the penalty is to be imposed as provided under section 21.

¶294

Further, the State being the custodian of the minerals and in order to deal with the illegal transportation or illegal storage of the minerals has been conferred with the power to formulate a rule under section 23C of the Act of 1957 and based upon that a specific rule has been formulated by way of JMMC Rules of 2017.

¶295

The power of search, seizure and confiscation has been given for the purpose of prevention of illegal mining, transportation or storage conferring power to the competent authority/competent officer.

¶296

36

¶297

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶298

The competent authority has been defined under Rule 2(c) of the Rule of 2017 which means the Additional Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary, Secretary, Mines Commissioner and Director, Mines appointed or authorized by the State Government.

¶299

The competent officer has been defined under Rule 2(d) which means the Deputy Commissioner of the district and District/Assistant Mining Officer of the district or any Gazetted officer authorized by the Deputy Commissioner of the district.

¶300

The competent authority/competent officer or any such officer authorized by the competent authority by virtue of Rule 11 of Rule of 2017 has been conferred with the power to inspect the place where mining, storage or processing unit exist to verify the stock of ore and minerals and take sample or inspect the record maintained by him.

¶301

Thus, the power has been conferred of making search and seizure in order to deal with the issue of illegal storage along with the illegal transportation. If such eventuality is found to be there, then the competent authority has been conferred with the power to penalize as per the provision made under the JMMC Rules, 2004 as provided under Rule 13 of the Rule of 2017.

¶302

We have already referred that under the JMMC Rules of 2017 there is no penalty provided and that is the reason the Statute after taking care of the aforesaid aspect of the matter has been incorporated under Rule 13 for imposing punishment as per the provision made under the JMMC Rules, 2004.

¶303

It needs to refer herein that since we are dealing with the issue

¶304

of the illegal transportation and for the aforesaid purpose a specific rule

¶305

37

¶306

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶307

has been formulated in the light of the provision of section 23C of MMDR Act, 1957 and, hence, the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004 as per the reference made thereof under Rule 13 of Rule of 2017 is being considered and in view of the fact that a criminal case is to be instituted if the State wishes to institute a criminal case as per the provision made under section 21(1) of MMDR Act, 1957.

¶308

Herein, as would be evident from the factual aspect that the competent authority has exercised the jurisdiction under Rule 13 of Rule, 2017 as has been referred in the impugned order dated 05.05.2020. Hence, we are considering the issue by taking into consideration the Rule of 2017 along with the JMMC Rules, 2004 as also with the object to put deterrence in the illegal transportation of minerals or its illegal storage.

¶309

Since we are dealing with the object and intent of the natural resources and for the aforesaid purpose the MMDR Act, 1957 has been enacted which contains the conferment of power to the State by way of the custodian to regulate. The same is a primary object of the State in view of the fact that there is no independent establishment of the Central Government in any State to look into the issue of regulating the transportation or storage of the minerals and, therefore, in that circumstances the accountability upon the State has become wide as to how to protect and regulate the illegality if has been found to be committed either in the matter of illegal transportation or illegal storage of the minerals.

¶310

This Court is of the view that if there is any lacuna in the statutory provision as has been pointed out even accepting the same the

¶311

38

¶312

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶313

illegal doer cannot be allowed to take any aid thereof, rather in such circumstances the principle of harmonious construction is to be applied for the purpose of securing the object and intent of the basic object which have been formulated for its regulation as in the present case by way of MMDR Act, 1957 which basic object is to develop the natural resources along with its regulation..

¶314

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State is having no authority, to impose punishment in terms of money save and except the case is to be instituted in view of the provision of Rule 54 (1) of JMMC Rules, 2004, if the penalty is to be imposed under the provision of Rule 13 of Rules of 2017.

¶315

But we are not in agreement with such submission due to the reason that the illegal doer cannot instruct the State to take recourse of provision where the issue of regulation of the object is there, herein minerals, as per the object of MMDR Act, 1957.

¶316

The institution of the criminal case will be by way of inflicting punishment upon the offender but how to compensate the illegal extraction of the minerals or its illegal transportation or illegal storage that is the question which is to be considered. Instituting a criminal case no doubt can also be resorted to, but can it be said that only remedy available to the State to institute a criminal case.

¶317

Will it not be said that by going through the provision of the MMDR Act, 1957, JMMC Rules, 2004 and Rules of 2017 that the State can also go for penalizing the illegal doer by penalizing in terms of money in addition by instituting a criminal case.

¶318

39

¶319

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶320

The State, in the present case has taken recourse of the Rule 13 of the Rule of 2017 whereby the punishment is to be imposed as per the JMMC Rules, 2004 and the only provision made under JMMC Rules, 2004 is provided under Rule 54 as referred herein above.

¶321

So long as the provision of Rule 13 of Rule of 2017 is not held to be ultra vires , it is not available for anybody to come and take the plea that there is no application of the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004 as it has specifically been referred as Rule 13 of the Rule of 2017.

¶322

If otherwise punishment as available under the JMMC Rules, 2004 other than as provided under the Rule 54(5), then the matter could be understood but that is not the factual situation, rather only provision provided under Rule 54 (5) wherein one year imprisonment and the word or alternatively the punishment can be imposed in terms of money.

¶323

The word “ अथवा”, therefore, is constituted to be alternatively of imposing punishment which is to be inflicted by the Court of Law. 101. The meaning of “ अथवा” would be alternative for the reason of the specific reference made under the provision of Rule 13 of Rule, 2017 that the punishment is to be inflicted as per the provision made under JMMC Rules, 2004.

¶324

In the JMMC Rules, 2004 there is no other provision save and except the Rule 54(5) which is in aid to the Rule 13 of Rule 2017. Further, under the Rule of 2017 as per Rule 11 the conferment of power of search and seizure has been vested upon the competent authority /competent officer, the executive functionary who is to search and seize the minerals as also inflict penalties as per the JMMC Rule 2004.

¶325

40

¶326

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶327

The aforesaid provision, therefore, clarifies that if the power has been conferred upon the executive authority having competent jurisdiction as provided under Rule 11 of the Rules of 2017, then certainly such power is to be exercised under the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004 and, hence, the word “ अथवा” will be constituted to be alternatively so as to exercise the said power by the executive authority having competency to punish such illegar doer in terms of money by imposing fine.

¶328

It is also being clarified herein that the purport of Rule 54 (1) of JMMC Rules, 2004 is to be interpreted for the purpse of giving effectiveness to the provision of Rules of 2017 is to be trated to be in two part, i.e., conferring the power of the State either to go for by instituting criminal case in pursuance to provision of Rule 54(1) of JMMC Rules, 2004 or if the competent authoirity has conducted search and seizure, then in such circumstances the section 54 (1) with 54(5) of JMMC Rules, 2004 is also to be taken to be exercised then only it will be said that effectiveness being given to the mandate of Rules 11 and 13 of the Rules of 2017.

¶329

It needs to refer herein that the underlying principle that the

¶330

act is to be read out harmoniously and not by picking one prevailing upon the another otherwise the principle of harmonious construction

¶331

will be frustrated as has been referred hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs.

¶332

41

¶333

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶334

The day when JMMC Rule, 2004 was enacted at that time

¶335

there is no existence of Rules of 2017 and in that way of the matter there are no dispute that who is to proceed in case of violation if the proceeding has been instituted under Rule 54(1).

¶336

The situation will be considered after the enactment of provision of Rules of 2017 wherein the power has been conferred to the executive authority by insertion of the applicability of the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004 and as such the moment the executive authority has been conferred with the power, then the reference of punishment or the imposing fine wherein the word

¶337

“ अथवा” is there to be read alternatively in pursuance to the mandate

¶338

of Rules of 2017.

¶339

The issue is answered accordingly.

¶340

Since we have decided the issue of jurisdiction without going into the factual aspect and, as such, is of the view that jurisdictional aspect having been answered hereinabove the writ petitioner is at liberty to avail the forum of appeal as provided under Rule 14 of the Rules of 2017 in order to bring all these facts before the concerned competent authority for its consideration in accordance with law.

¶341

If such application will be filed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with the relevant

¶342

42

¶343

2025:JHHC:28087-DB

¶344

documents, then the appellate authority will decide the same in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application.

¶345